Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eh, it all depends. We have dump trucks around here that run all surface streets at 130,000 lbs. That's 130,000 lbs in a small package compared to a tractor-trailer and it doesn't seem to destroy our side streets. I don't see it doing anymore long term damage to our interstates but I'm no engineer.
The article misses the fact that many states and "private" roadways from the NJ Garden State Parkway and NY Thruway to local, county and state roads all generally have permitting to allow heavier loads or use of tandem trailers that easily exceed 97k GVW. There is no reason why they couldn't allow the heavier trucks and limit them to certain roads. The fact is that 80k GVW is easily handled by modern tractor trailers that can easily haul weights well over 120k pounds. The payback is in fuel savings to the fleet, but also in less trucks on the road to do the same job.
I don't see any reason not to destroy our highways in exchange for higher corporate profits, do you?
You do realize that the extra 17k is all freight, so on a typical tractor-trailer combo that is pulling maybe 45k of freight, this would mean carrying 37% more cargo per trip with almost no detriment to fuel economy. Every three 97k GVW trucks would mean one less tractor-trailer combo on the road. Basically, this would allow you to reduce the number of trucks on the road by around 25% and still provide the same freight capacity. It would also dramatically lower the cost per ton of shipping as well as the fuel consumed per ton. I really don't see the negative as almost all roads allow operation of vehicles that heavy under permitting as it is.
You do realize that the extra 17k is all freight, so on a typical tractor-trailer combo that is pulling maybe 45k of freight, this would mean carrying 37% more cargo per trip with almost no detriment to fuel economy. Every three 97k GVW trucks would mean one less tractor-trailer combo on the road. Basically, this would allow you to reduce the number of trucks on the road by around 25% and still provide the same freight capacity. It would also dramatically lower the cost per ton of shipping as well as the fuel consumed per ton. I really don't see the negative as almost all roads allow operation of vehicles that heavy under permitting as it is.
If every truck on the road were grossed out, that would be true. But, most are not anywhere near the 80,000 lb. limit. A majority of trucks you see are carrying consumer goods, store stock, imported stuff or produce, none of which are usually very heavy. Since we are no longer predominantly a manufacturing economy, truck load freight is no longer predominantly heavy. LTL freight (less than trailer load) never was and still isn't.
Yes, there are heavily laden trucks out there, but those are mostly hauling high weight/low value bulk commodities such as rock, chemicals, fuel, meat, lumber/timber or canned goods. Consequently, the only people who would benefit from a higher weight limit are those businesses involved in transporting those things, like Kraft, for instance. They could eliminate a few trucks from the road, thereby saving money (and costing truckers their jobs), but most businesses would not gain a thing from a higher limit because their load weight is limited by the volume a trailer can hold and that would not change.
Moreover, the amount of stress a loaded truck puts on the pavement is determined by the formula of gross weight divided by the square inches of tire surface in contact with the road. The more tires, the more weight can be hauled without damaging the road. That's why you see multiple axle trucks in places like Michigan and why trucks which haul heavy gross weight loads have 18 wheels. Unless more tires are mandated to haul those heavier loads, the result can't be anything less than an increase in pavement damage to highways already poorly or inadequately maintained.
Additionally, there's the issue of braking. Trucks are designed to accommodate 80,000 lbs and increasing that limit will mean less effective braking and longer stopping distances unless bigger brake blocks are mandated too. And, even that would probably require bigger brake drums on axles already as close to the floor of the trailer as the law allows to make room more cubic feet inside. There's also the issue of wear and tear on suspensions, drive trains and steering mechanism's. Today's trucks are not designed to carry that much weight and it would be a decade or more before trucks actually built to haul them take over the roads. In the interim, maintenance costs will go up and public safety will be adversely affected.
Fuel mileage: A heavily loaded truck burns far more fuel that a lightly loaded one. It's simple physics. The greater the weight, the more horsepower needed to get it moving and keep it moving. Since raising the limit would not actually eliminate very many, if any, trucks from the road (they would just start hauling something else), the net effect would likely be more fuel consumption and more hydrocarbons spewed into the air.
It just seems like a dumb idea to me. A host of new problems in exchange for marginal benefit to the public.
Just so you'll know, I drove a truck all my working life and lived through the changeover from 73,280 lbs to 80,000 lbs, so I've seen this rodeo before.
By the way, during that changeover, we found that the federal government cannot actually compel states to go along. All they can do is threaten the loss of highway funds. Consequently, not every state did at first. For a period of several years, a driver would regularly find himself hauling a legal, 80,000 lb load in one state, but when he crossed the state line, he was illegal. At the end, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas and Mississippi were the last hold-outs for 73,280 lbs and their proximity to each other literally cut the country in two. A driver could not legally haul an 80,000 lb load from one coast to the other because he had to cross one of those states along the way.
Naturally, that led to a giant game of cops and robbers as drivers went around scales, sped through as fast as they could in the middle of the night, ran by scales in the darkness with their lights out and generally ignored the law. Millions of dollar in fines were collected, thousands of drivers went to jail, trucks and freight were impounded, companies fined etc, etc, etc. That whole "scofflaw" period gave birth to the CB radio craze and "Smokey and the Bandit" wasn't far from the truth.
When I read that up to 100,000 lb rigs will be on our roads and bridges I get really concerned since so much of our infrastructure need repair and updated!
To top that off the Chinese are getting the contracts to work/repair our roads and bridges using Chinese workers!! Oh hell, that is no good!
If every truck on the road were grossed out, that would be true. But, most are not anywhere near the 80,000 lb. limit. A majority of trucks you see are carrying consumer goods, store stock, imported stuff or produce, none of which are usually very heavy. Since we are no longer predominantly a manufacturing economy, truck load freight is no longer predominantly heavy. LTL freight (less than trailer load) never was and still isn't.
Yes, there are heavily laden trucks out there, but those are mostly hauling high weight/low value bulk commodities such as rock, chemicals, fuel, meat, lumber/timber or canned goods. Consequently, the only people who would benefit from a higher weight limit are those businesses involved in transporting those things, like Kraft, for instance. They could eliminate a few trucks from the road, thereby saving money (and costing truckers their jobs), but most businesses would not gain a thing from a higher limit because their load weight is limited by the volume a trailer can hold and that would not change.
You are correct that a good amount of trucks are cubed out before they are grossed out, but in the truck load business more often than not trucks are hauling darn close to the 80k limit.
Regardless of the US's state of manufacturing (we are actually still the largest manufacturing nation on Earth) the simple fact is that everything gets moved on a truck at some point in its life. So whether we're hauling from the factory to the DC or from the port to the DC it's still all being hauled.
Quote:
Moreover, the amount of stress a loaded truck puts on the pavement is determined by the formula of gross weight divided by the square inches of tire surface in contact with the road. The more tires, the more weight can be hauled without damaging the road. That's why you see multiple axle trucks in places like Michigan and why trucks which haul heavy gross weight loads have 18 wheels. Unless more tires are mandated to haul those heavier loads, the result can't be anything less than an increase in pavement damage to highways already poorly or inadequately maintained.
An extra 4 wheel "dead" axle added to a trailer designed for 97k gross would eliminate that concern, you could actually only use a 2 wheel axles if you really wanted to. We'd give up about 2k in freight, but eliminate the concern entirely.
Quote:
Additionally, there's the issue of braking. Trucks are designed to accommodate 80,000 lbs and increasing that limit will mean less effective braking and longer stopping distances unless bigger brake blocks are mandated too. And, even that would probably require bigger brake drums on axles already as close to the floor of the trailer as the law allows to make room more cubic feet inside. There's also the issue of wear and tear on suspensions, drive trains and steering mechanism's. Today's trucks are not designed to carry that much weight and it would be a decade or more before trucks actually built to haul them take over the roads. In the interim, maintenance costs will go up and public safety will be adversely affected.
As someone whose spent a lot of time speccing out class 8 trucks, I can assure you that there is no issue with suspensions, drivetrains and steering components at 97k. You can take a pretty much stock Freightliner and haul 120k with it without much problem. Yes, a smart spec for that heavier weight would demand some upgraded components, but they already exist and are available. Braking distances are increased by about 5% at 100k versus 80k, so not a major difference and the majority of that could be overcome and actually generate shorter distances by switching to front discs or simply beefing up the tractors brakes.
Quote:
Fuel mileage: A heavily loaded truck burns far more fuel that a lightly loaded one. It's simple physics. The greater the weight, the more horsepower needed to get it moving and keep it moving. Since raising the limit would not actually eliminate very many, if any, trucks from the road (they would just start hauling something else), the net effect would likely be more fuel consumption and more hydrocarbons spewed into the air.
While a heavier load nets to greater consumption under acceleration, cruising at 80k gross or 100k gross tends to net the same economy. I've had properly specced daycabs hauling 120k tandems on the NY Thruway getting 7.5MPG, beating out standard fleet sleepers pulling 80k gross.
Quote:
It just seems like a dumb idea to me. A host of new problems in exchange for marginal benefit to the public.
Just so you'll know, I drove a truck all my working life and lived through the changeover from 73,280 lbs to 80,000 lbs, so I've seen this rodeo before.
By the way, during that changeover, we found that the federal government cannot actually compel states to go along. All they can do is threaten the loss of highway funds. Consequently, not every state did at first. For a period of several years, a driver would regularly find himself hauling a legal, 80,000 lb load in one state, but when he crossed the state line, he was illegal. At the end, Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas and Mississippi were the last hold-outs for 73,280 lbs and their proximity to each other literally cut the country in two. A driver could not legally haul an 80,000 lb load from one coast to the other because he had to cross one of those states along the way.
Naturally, that led to a giant game of cops and robbers as drivers went around scales, sped through as fast as they could in the middle of the night, ran by scales in the darkness with their lights out and generally ignored the law. Millions of dollar in fines were collected, thousands of drivers went to jail, trucks and freight were impounded, companies fined etc, etc, etc. That whole "scofflaw" period gave birth to the CB radio craze and "Smokey and the Bandit" wasn't far from the truth.
Who'd want to go back to that?
It's all in the excecution, I see the benefit assuming it is implemented properly and the trucks are properly specced. The argument of road wear and tear is kind of pointless as there are plenty of trucks already running that weight and it won't admittedly be a universal benefit that all trucks could take advantage of.
As a driver for a truckload carrier, I'm supposed to salute all American Trucking Associations positions. So I'll just say "Thanks, Stillkit"!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
